Suresh sharma, Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Bangalore

MA 75/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3406 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S NAMBIRAJAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 90; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO. 75/BANG/2015 ( IN I.T.A. NO. 297 /BANG/201 4) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 ) SHRI SURESH SHARMA, NO.328, SANGEETHA BHAVAN, TIPPU SULTAN ROAD, KALASIPALYAM, BANGALORE. PAN ABXPS 2091M VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SMT. SHEETAL, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. NAMBI RAJAN, JCIT (D .R) DATE OF H EARING : 31.7.2015. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 24.9. 201 5 . O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, A.M. : THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ( M.P. IN SHORT) IS RAISED IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.297/BANG/2014 DT.23.1.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. THE FACTS, BRIEFLY, ARE AS UNDER : - 2. 1 THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,84,79,211. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AND THE CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS CONCLUDED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.29.11.2011, WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.2,95,35,710. THE ASSESSEE 2 M.P. NO.75/BANG/2015 (IN ITA NO. 297 /BANG/1 4) SUBSEQUENTLY ON 15.12.2011 FILED A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE QUANTUM OF INTERE S T CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DT.18.5.2012 REJECTING THE ASSESSEE'S APPLICATION. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) II, BANGALORE WHO DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL VIDE ORDER DT.2.12.2013. 3.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) II, BANGALORE DT.2.12.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE C IT (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE APPELLANT S PLEA ALL ALONG WAS THAT INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT WAS EXCESSIVE AND IT WAS NEVER THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAME WAS NOT CHARGEABLE AND THEREFORE FIND ING GIVEN BY THE CIT (APPEALS) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED ON THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INTEREST WORKED OUT BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B WAS CORRECT, WHI CH WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRANNOY ROY (309 ITR 231) (SC) AND BHARATBHAI B SHAH VS. ITO REPORTED IN (2013) 31 TAXMANN.COM 34 WERE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. 3.2 TH E TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO.297/BANG/2014 DT.23.1.2015 DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. IT IS AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT M.P. , SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY ACCEPTING THE IN TEREST CALCULATION UNDER SECTION 234A OF THE ACT AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED. 3 M.P. NO.75/BANG/2015 (IN ITA NO. 297 /BANG/1 4) 3.3 FROM A PERUSAL OF THE CONTENTS OF THE M.P., IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT : - I) INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A OF THE ACT IS CHARGE ABLE AFTER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE UPTO THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME; II) IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V PRANOY ROY & ANOTHER IN 309ITR 231 (SC), INTEREST UNDER SECTION 23 4 OF THE ACT IS PAYABLE ONLY ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX THAT HAS NOT BEEN DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. III) THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS AFFIRMED BY THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR DT.1 0.2.2015; IV) THE AMOUNT OF SELF - ASSESSMENT TAX WAS REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED OUT OF THE TOTAL PAYMENT BEFORE THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A OF THE ACT IS COMPUTED. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SUFFERS FROM A MISTAKE IN THIS REGARD, WHICH REQUIRES RECTIFICATION. 3.4 PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE M.P. AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3.5.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON. ADMIT TEDLY, THE ONLY ISSUE OF DISPUTE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THE QUESTION OF INTEREST CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 234A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS ERRONEOUS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CHARGED EXCESSIVE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF 4 M.P. NO.75/BANG/2015 (IN ITA NO. 297 /BANG/1 4) PRANOY ROY (SUPRA) AND THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARATBHAI B SHAH V ITO REP ORTED IN (2007) 31 TAXMAN.COM 34 WERE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE AND OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND FOLLOWED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE M.P. THAT THESE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIB UNAL IN IMPUGNED ORDER. 3.5.2 WE FIND, FROM A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUES RAISED AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON AND HAS RENDERED A SPECIFIC FINDING, UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS). THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AT PARAS 6.3.1 AND 6.3.2 IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : - 6.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIE D UPON. ON AN APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL REGARDING THE QUANTUM OF INTEREST IT IS CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT, AS PER THE ASSESSEE'S CALCULATION AT RS.34,116 AND RS.4,99,921 RESPECTIVELY VIS - A - VIS THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT RS.2,86,932 AND RS.5,51,822 RESPECTIVELY, HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS ALS O CONSIDERED AND DISTINGUISHED THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E. PRANNOY ROY (SUPRA) AND BHARATBHAI B SHAH (SUPRA). THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : 1.2 AS THE APPELLANT WAS AGGRIEVED BY THE INTE REST LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B, HE APPLIED FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE SAME UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT VIDE LETTER DT.15.12.2011 BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DT.18.5.2012 REJECTED THE APPELLANT S APPLICATION. IN THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT / RECTIFICATION ORDER SO MADE, THE APPELLANT IS NOT AGITATING THE QUANTUM OF INCOME ASSESSED BUT IS QUESTIONING THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. ; THE APPELLANT S GROUND IS TH AT INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A IS NOT LEVIABLE ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX PAID AFTER THE DATE OF PAYMENT UP TO THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT, INSTEAD OF THE INTEREST OF RS.2,06,932 AND RS.5,51,822 LEVIED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234 B RESPECTIVELY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF INTEREST LEVIABLE IS ONLY RS.34,116 AND RS.4,99,921. FROM THE ABOVE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS HIS GRIEVANCE AGAINST EXCESSIVE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SE CTION 234A AND 234B. TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT HE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRANNOY ROY REPORTED IN 309 ITR 231. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS HE HAS 5 M.P. NO.75/BANG/2015 (IN ITA NO. 297 /BANG/1 4) ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARATBHAI B. SHAH VS. ITO REPORTED IN (2013) 31 TAXMANN.COM 34. LET US LOOK AT THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THIS CASE IN TERMS OF RELEVANT DATES AND PAYMENT : TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE 21,05,330 ADVANCE TAX ON 14.3.2009 25,00,000 SELF ASSESSMENT TAX ON 29.7.2 009 10,00,000 29.08.2009 20,00,000 29.09.2009 10,00,000 3.11.2009 10,00,000 50,00,000 TAX ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT 9,60,000 IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID 10 LAKHS ON 3.11.2009 MUCH AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER QUESTION. THIS CARDINAL FACTUM DISTINGUISHES THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FORM THAT OF PRANNOY ROY (SUPRA). IN THE CASE OF PRANNOY ROY, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME LATE, HE HAD TAKEN CARE TO PAY THE DUE TAXES WELL BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME THEREBY FULFILLING THE STATUTORY STIPULATION. AS NOTED ABOVE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME LATE BUT ALSO PAID THE TAXES LATE. THUS GROUND NO.2 & 3 IS DISMISSED A S THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THAT LEAVES THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARATHBAHI B SHAH (SUPRA). AT THE OUTSET, THE DECISION IS GIVEN BY GUJARAT HIGH COURT WHICH IS NOT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THA T APART, EVEN IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAXES BEFORE DUE DATE THOUGH BELATEDLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS BOTH PAID THE TAXES AND FILED RETURN BELATEDLY WHICH MAKES BOTH DECISIONS IN - OPERATIONAL FOR A SSESSEE. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT A DETAILED WORKING OF THE TAX COMPUTATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DT.5.7.2013 AND 17.10.2013 WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AS AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ON 11.11.2013, THE ASSESSEE FILED H IS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHEREIN HE HAS ANNEXED A COMPUTATION AS PER SC S DECISION IN THE CASE OF PRANNOY ROY (SUPRA). I HAVE ALREADY HELD VIDE PARA THAT THE SAID CASE BEING FACTUALLY DIFFERENT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. 6 M.P. NO.75/BANG/2015 (IN ITA NO. 297 /BANG/1 4) AS REGARDS ASSESSEE' S CONTENTION AT PARA 4 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION REGARDING THE WORKING OF INTEREST, I FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER S WORKING TO BE CORRECT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : (I) THE ACT UNDER SECTION 234A(1) PROVIDES FOR GIVING CREDIT TO ADVANCE TAX PAID AND TAX DEDUCT ED / COLLECTED AT SOURCE. 1) WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER SUB - SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139, OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142, IS FURNISHED AFTER THE DUE DATE, OR IS NOT FURNISHED THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY SIMPLE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF ONE PER CENT FOR EVERY MONTH OR PART OF A MONTH COMPRISED IN THE PERIOD COMMENCING ON THE DATE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE DUE DATE, AND A) WHERE THE RETURN IS FURNISHED AFTER THE DUE DATE, ENDING ON THE DATE OF FURN ISHING OF THE RETURN; OR B) WHERE NO RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED, ENDING ON THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144. ON THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME AS DETERMINED UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 143, AND WHERE A REGULAR ASSESSM ENT IS MADE, ON THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME DETERMINED UNDER REGULAR ASSESSMENT, AS REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF : - (I) ADVANCE TAX, IF ANY, PAID; (II) ANY TAX DEDUCTED OR COLLECTED AT SOURCE; (III) ANY RELIEF OF TAX ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 90 ON ACCOUNT OF TA X PAID IN A COUNTRY OUTSIDE INDIA; (IV) ANY RELIEF OF TAX ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 90A ON ACCOUNT OF TAX PAID IN A SPECIFIED TERRITORY OUTSIDE INDIA REFERRED TO IN THAT SECTION; (V) ANY DEDUCTION, FROM THE INDIAN INCOME TAX PAYABLE, ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 91, ON ACCO UNT OF TAX PAID IN A COUNTRY OUTSIDE INDIA, AND (VI) ANY TAX CREDIT ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JAA (OR SECTION 115JD). (II) ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID TAXES AND NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN DUE TIME, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CHOOSE A WORKING THAT IS MOST SUITABLE TO HIM OVERRIDING THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. (III) OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLE OF CASSUS OMISSUS WHEREIN WHAT IS NOT PRESENT IN THE LAW CANNOT BE READ INTO IT, THE ASSESSEE'S CALCULATION IS UNACCEPTABLE AS THE ASS ESSEE IS READING AN INTENT THAT IS ABSENT IN THE ACT ITSELF WHICH IS TO CALCULATE 234A ONLY ON CERTAIN PAYMENTS. 7 M.P. NO.75/BANG/2015 (IN ITA NO. 297 /BANG/1 4) (IV) IN FISCAL POLICY, INTEREST IS CHARGED TO COMPENSATE THE LOSS OF REVENUE TO THE EXCHEQUER. TO THAT EXTENT BY NOT PAYING HIS TAXES IN TIME , THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES IN TERMS OF COMPENSATORY INTEREST. THIS CANNOT BE TREATED AS PENAL IN NATURE BUT ONLY COMPENSATORY. IN SUPREME COURT S ORDER IN THIS CASE OF CIT VS. ANJUM M H GHOSWALA AND OTHERS DELIVERED ON 18.10.2001 IN APEX COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO DELIBERATE ON THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A/234B/234C. THEIR WISDOMS ARE FOUND AS BELOW : WE WILL HAVE TO EXAMINE THE CHARACTER OF INTEREST PAYABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C. A PERUSAL OF THE SE SECTIONS SHOWS THAT THE INTEREST FOR DEFAULT IN FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME, DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX AND INTEREST FOR DEFERMENT OF ADVANCE TAX ARE MANDATORY IN NATURE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6.3.2 FROM A PERUSAL O F THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER EXTRACTED ABOVE (SUPRA), THE GROUNDS RAISED AND ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH IN THIS APPEAL, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS ADDRESSED BOTH THE ISSUES OF EXCESSIVE CALCULATION OF CHARGE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT, AS WELL AS BY DISTINGUISHING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE DISMISSING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. BEFORE US, EXCEPT FOR REITERATING THE CONTENTIONS THAT THE INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT WAS EXCESSIVE AND THAT THE SAME TWO JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF PRANNOY ROY (SUPRA) AND BHARATBHAI B SHAH (SUPRA) WERE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING S OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) EITHER ON FACTS IN RESPECT OF THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT OR IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RESPECT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SEE NO REASON TO I NTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THEREFORE UPHOLD THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE'S GROUNDS RAISED AT S.NOS.2 TO 4 STANDS DISMISSED. 3.5.3 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE EXCESSIVE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT CITED AND RENDERED A FINDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS RENDERED A SPECIFIC FINDING WITH REASONS, AS TO WHY THE COMPUTATION OF INTEREST AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT. 8 M.P. NO.75/BANG/2015 (IN ITA NO. 297 /BANG/1 4) 3.5.4 FURTHER, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RENDERED A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), EITHER ON FACTS IN RESPECT OF THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A OF THE ACT OR IN LAW IN RESPECT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND H AS THEREFORE UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS). IN THE PRESENT M.P. ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE THAT THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE ON FACTS, WHICH ARE WRONGLY CONSIDERED . 3.5.5 THE LIMITED ISSUE BEFORE US IN THIS M.P. IS WHETHER THERE IS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FORM THE ORDER / RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PRESSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OR WHETHER THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CORRECTLY UNDERSTOOD, THAT WARRANTS RECT IFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN BASED ON THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ORAL SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH AND ITS EVALUATION / APPRECIATION BY THE TRIBUNAL. WHETHER THE FACTS HAVE BEEN E VALUATED PROPERLY OR NOT OR WHETHER THEY HAVE BEEN EVALUATED IN THE MANNER EXPECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE M.P. IN OUR VIEW, A CLEAR FINDING HAS BEEN RENDERED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL. 3.5.6 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE MATTER AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND THE CLEAR FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT M.P. IN OUR VIEW, A CLEAR FINDING HAS BEEN RENDERED ON ALL ISSU ES UNDER APPEAL, BASED ON AN EVALUATION OF THE FACTS EMANATING FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE, BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD . S EEKING RE - EVALUATION OF THE FACTS OR TO MAKE FRESH SUBMISSIONS ON THE SAME SET OF ISSU ES AND FACTS AMOUNT TO SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE M.P. THE ISSUE IN THE CASE ON HAND IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE OUT ANY CASE OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS, TO WARRANT INTERFERENCE UNDER SECTION 2 54(2) OF THE ACT. FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT 9 M.P. NO.75/BANG/2015 (IN ITA NO. 297 /BANG/1 4) POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. WE, THEREFORE DISMISS THIS M.P. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE'S M.P. FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009 - 10 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH SEPT., 201 5 . SD/ - ( VIJAYPAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (JASON P BOAZ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *REDDY GP COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE